In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00203-CR

MORGAN DANIEL BARKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017F00123

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION Morgan Daniel Barker pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon 1 and was placed on seven years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Barker had committed ten different violations of the conditions of his community supervision. Barker pled true to nine of the violations alleged by the State, and following the presentation of evidence, the trial court entered a judgment adjudicating guilt and sentencing Barker to fifteen years’ incarceration. Barker appeals.

Barker’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case, summarizing the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and concluding that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Counsel forwarded copies of his brief and motion to withdraw to Barker and informed him of his rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, should he so desire. Additionally, counsel provided Barker with a complete copy of the appellate record in this matter. Barker filed a pro se response, in which he claims (1) the trial court erred in the

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2019). admission of a photograph, (2) the trial court and the district attorney engaged in an ex parte conversation, (3) his trial counsel was ineffective, (4) his appellate attorney misidentified him in his brief as “Mr. Edwards,” and (5) he was incompetent at the plea hearing.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2

Scott E. Stevens Justice Date Submitted: May 6, 2019 Date Decided: May 7, 2019 Do Not Publish

Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.